Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:01 pm  

Nice opportunity for someone to start a negative thread on TotalRL Forum though?

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:50 pm  

Big lads mate wrote:

Nobody in his business makes that much money without shafting someone along the way, they ought to strip him and his parasite mates of everything.

Agreed, BLM!!!!

Pity it had to be us.

[PopTart]

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:01 pm  

So just to be clear, he is being investigate.
He hasn't been charged with anything.
There is nothing in the article about the issue relating to us and I can't see he has done anything wrong there.

You can't post accusations or imply he has done anything guilty on here until its proved and in the public domain.

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:25 pm  

PopTart wrote:

So just to be clear, he is being investigate.
He hasn't been charged with anything.
There is nothing in the article about the put hade relating to us and I can't see he has done anything wrong there.

You can't post accusations or imply he has done anything guilty on here until its proved and in the public domain.

He is subject of an unexplained wealth order he now has to prove that his money is was ligitimate in building up his property portfolio. Unlike normal criminal cases the onus is not on the authorities to prove the finances are light but on the subject of the order. Like the Proceeds of Crime Act this can be seen as Draconian legislation as it reverses the burden of proof. All assets identified assets I believe will be frozen until proof that they were funded ligitimately if not they will be retained by the authorities I presume.

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:28 pm  

Fishermanscap wrote:

Yeah, I get that but unlike the car example, he didn't actually steal it ie all those involved had no reason to believe BV was stolen because technically it wasn't.

That said I'm no lawyer so I can't say for certain you're wrong, I wish I could, just doesn't sound likely to me.

Any GENUINE legal eagles on here, I think Slugger comes from that background?

These new orders came into play after I left the CPS but my legal gut feeling tells me that it shouldn't impact on the club.

They want to know where his wealth has come from. Well, one answer is "I screwed a local rugby club by making them give me 3 million for an asset I'd picked up for 600k". That explains 2.4million!

But freezing his assets would not involve the club. He has no assets tied up with the club. They don't go back and undo all the deals. They just freeze his current assets, which thankfully no longer include Belle Vue. Going back to the banker's wife, do you think someone had the job of taking the jewellery back to Harrods and getting a refund? Of course not. What they can do is freeze assets and say "if you want them unfreezing, explain where they came from".

If he still owned Belle Vue, that would be a different issue, particularly if the club was involved in purchasing it, as they would then be trying to purchase a frozen asset.

My legal gut feeling is that there is nothing to see here, but maybe we dodged a bullet by a year or so.

Re: Manni Hussain : Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:22 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote: These new orders came into play after I left the CPS but my legal gut feeling tells me that it shouldn't impact on the club. They want to know where his wealth has come from. Well, one answer is "I screwed a local rugby club by making them give me 3 million for an asset I'd picked up for 600k". That explains 2.4million! But freezing his assets would not involve the club. He has no assets tied up with the club. They don't go back and undo all the deals. They just freeze his current assets, which thankfully no longer include Belle Vue. Going back to the banker's wife, do you think someone had the job of taking the jewellery back to Harrods and getting a refund? Of course not. What they can do is freeze assets and say "if you want them unfreezing, explain where they came from". If he still owned Belle Vue, that would be a different issue, particularly if the club was involved in purchasing it, as they would then be trying to purchase a frozen asset. My legal gut feeling is that there is nothing to see here, but maybe we dodged a bullet by a year or so. Agreed, whatever he has done, or not as the case may be, it has no bearing on the club at all imo, how could it. As you say the law is all about freezing his coin, then relieve him of it if he can't explain where he got either his initial money to set him up, or if he's been continually been getting gains from sources he can't legally explain, not retrospectively reversing or interfering in past financial dealings. I'm a bit surprised some people may make that leap especially if they read up on what the law is and what it's about. Like you say though if this had happened a year/18 months ago it would be a different kettle of fish and would have been a huge headache for the Club and fans to say the least. It's only of interest to us because he owned the ground for a short time, then we bought it back, plus if your into a bit of true crime, the fact he's one of the few people that the NCA have gone after using 'McMafia law' and the first with links to organised crime. There was an article in the DM last July which I believe is now Hussein. Back when it was originally reported, it just referred to a northern man and a 10 million pound property empire and they were looking into him due to his suspected links to criminal activity, which now he's been named seems obviously him, so they've been looking into him for quite some time. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7260691/Businessman-ordered-reveal-funds-10million-empire-use-McMafia-laws.html

Slugger McBatt wrote: These new orders came into play after I left the CPS but my legal gut feeling tells me that it shouldn't impact on the club. They want to know where his wealth has come from. Well, one answer is "I screwed a local rugby club by making them give me 3 million for an asset I'd picked up for 600k". That explains 2.4million! But freezing his assets would not involve the club. He has no assets tied up with the club. They don't go back and undo all the deals. They just freeze his current assets, which thankfully no longer include Belle Vue. Going back to the banker's wife, do you think someone had the job of taking the jewellery back to Harrods and getting a refund? Of course not. What they can do is freeze assets and say "if you want them unfreezing, explain where they came from". If he still owned Belle Vue, that would be a different issue, particularly if the club was involved in purchasing it, as they would then be trying to purchase a frozen asset. My legal gut feeling is that there is nothing to see here, but maybe we dodged a bullet by a year or so. Agreed, whatever he has done, or not as the case may be, it has no bearing on the club at all imo, how could it. As you say the law is all about freezing his coin, then relieve him of it if he can't explain where he got either his initial money to set him up, or if he's been continually been getting gains from sources he can't legally explain, not retrospectively reversing or interfering in past financial dealings. I'm a bit surprised some people may make that leap especially if they read up on what the law is and what it's about. Like you say though if this had happened a year/18 months ago it would be a different kettle of fish and would have been a huge headache for the Club and fans to say the least. It's only of interest to us because he owned the ground for a short time, then we bought it back, plus if your into a bit of true crime, the fact he's one of the few people that the NCA have gone after using 'McMafia law' and the first with links to organised crime. There was an article in the DM last July which I believe is now Hussein. Back when it was originally reported, it just referred to a northern man and a 10 million pound property empire and they were looking into him due to his suspected links to criminal activity, which now he's been named seems obviously him, so they've been looking into him for quite some time. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7260691/Businessman-ordered-reveal-funds-10million-empire-use-McMafia-laws.html

Re: Manni Hussain : Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:57 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

These new orders came into play after I left the CPS but my legal gut feeling tells me that it shouldn't impact on the club.

They want to know where his wealth has come from. Well, one answer is "I screwed a local rugby club by making them give me 3 million for an asset I'd picked up for 600k". That explains 2.4million!

But freezing his assets would not involve the club. He has no assets tied up with the club. They don't go back and undo all the deals. They just freeze his current assets, which thankfully no longer include Belle Vue. Going back to the banker's wife, do you think someone had the job of taking the jewellery back to Harrods and getting a refund? Of course not. What they can do is freeze assets and say "if you want them unfreezing, explain where they came from".

If he still owned Belle Vue, that would be a different issue, particularly if the club was involved in purchasing it, as they would then be trying to purchase a frozen asset.

My legal gut feeling is that there is nothing to see here, but maybe we dodged a bullet by a year or so.

Thanks Slugger.

Like a lot of people on here I’m very good at sounding like I know what I’m talking about then I realise I don’t! Always good to get expert knowledge or pretty close.

Re: Manni Hussain : Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:10 am  

I've just read the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and what stands out is the present tense. It talks about property he "holds", not "holds or has held". That is the significant part for me. If it was meant to dig into the past, it would include the past tense.

I presume this is because to go into past assets could prejudice those who presently hold the assets disposed of in the past (Wakefield Trinity), but also because any sums received would be held or used to buy something else, so they go after the "something else".

What the Act does is beef up the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. If there is a legitimate source of his money, his accountant will explain it.

Before an order can be made, however, the High Court has to be satisfied:
1. He holds the asset and it is worth over £50,000
2. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that the known sources of his lawfully-obtained income would not cover those assets
3. Crucially, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that either he, or someone connected to him, has been involved in serious crime in the UK or elsewhere

Re: Manni Hussain : Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:18 am  

I wonder if Manni Hussain`s contacts at WMDC will be feeling a little embarrassed presumably investigations will be made re due diligence etc, maybe Peter Box will have the answers . There seems to be a bit of a theme to this sort of thing I read that the Penny Appeal director is been investigated by the charities commission, I presume that this is the same Penny Appeal that purchased the Thornes Park College site from WMDC. It makes you wonder who are the people who are making the introductions , recommendations etc to the council.

Re: Manni Hussain : Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:12 pm  

It’s a good job he didn’t invest in the club then like a couple of posters suggested.